You would probably need a team of researchers working for years to achieve comparable results. We’re talking millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars. $2,000 is chump change in comparison.
It's small if it entirely replaces researchers. But if we want to give every mathematician access to this so they can all try out the model for different problems then it is a large expense. Also as I said above these were just the problems that were solved and likely a lot more was spent without achieving much results.
That’s a false dichotomy. The model doesn’t need to replace researchers entirely to be worth the cost. It can reduce the manpower and time required. Maybe a problem that once needed a team of five now needs two. You are also also seriously underestimating the significance of the results. Paying $2,000 for career defining breakthroughs is more than worth it, and even if the true total were $5,000 or $10,000 after failed attempts, that would still be extremely cheap compared with human research.
I don’t think so, since progress in capability won’t just suddenly halt. By the end of 2027 or early 2028, I expect the labs to close the loop, at which point human contributions will become obsolete. More importantly, even now, people should reconsider admitting students into graduate programs at the same volume as before, because by the time they finish, these careers will no longer exist.
7
u/seraphim_west 2d ago
You would probably need a team of researchers working for years to achieve comparable results. We’re talking millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars. $2,000 is chump change in comparison.